Quiet Title Action and the Statute of Limitations
In California, there is no specific statute of limitations for quiet title actions. Courts, instead, look to the underlying theory of relief to determine the applicable statute of limitations. The most likely statute of limitations for a quiet title action are 5 years for a claim based on adverse possession, 4 years for a claim based on cancellation of an instrument, and 3 years for a claim based on fraud or mistake. Salazar v. Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 476-477.
A common defense to a quiet title action is the statute of limitations. Generally, no statute of limitations runs against a plaintiff seeking to quiet title while plaintiff is in possession of the real property in dispute. Tannhauser v. Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169, 175; Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.A2d 558, 560. In so holding, the California Supreme Court determined that “in many instances one in possession would not know of dormant adverse claims… [and even if] the party in possession knows of a potential claimant, there is no reason to put him to the expense and inconvenience of litigation until such a claim is pressed against him.” Muktarian v. Barmby, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 561.
In 1921, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of the statute of limitations in a quite title action stating that “[a]n outstanding adverse claim, which amounts only to a cloud upon the title, is a continuing cause of action, and is not barred by lapse of time, until the hostile claim is asserted in some manner to jeopardize the superior title. So long as the adverse claim lies dormant and inactive the owner of the superior title may not be incommoded by it and has the privilege of allowing it to stand indefinitely. Each day’s assertion of such adverse claim gives a renewed cause of action to quiet title until such action is brought.” Secret Valley Land Co. v. Perry (1921) 187 Cal. 420, 426-427. Recently, the California Court of Appeals affirmed that the statute of limitations in a quiet title action does not begin to run against a party while they are still in possession of the property, even where that possession is shared with another person. Reuter v. Macal (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 571, 580 (“Reuter”). The court in Reuter concluded that the statute of limitations did not begin to run as long as the plaintiff had possession of the property and the defendant did not threaten or disturb that possession. Ibid.
But when is a party no longer in “undisturbed possession” of property?
In making the determination as to whether possession of land has been “disturbed,” courts have looked to the following as set forth in Salazar v. Thomas, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 478:
(1) When were the plaintiffs no longer owners in “exclusive and undisputed” possession of the land [citation];
(2) When was defendants’ adverse “claim…pressed against” plaintiffs [citation]; or
(3) When was defendants’ hostile claim “asserted in some manner to jeopardize the superior title” held by plaintiffs [citation].
Generally, more than a mere threat to a person’s title to property is required to commence the running of the statute of limitations against an owner in possession. Huang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 431, 438.
Do you have questions about a real property matter? Contact Dias Law Firm, Inc. today for a consultation. Our knowledgeable attorneys and staff are here to help.
By: Ella R. Floresca, Esq.
